E 







£ V- 



Y ^ ^ 



^/ 






THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE 
INDEPENDENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA. 






SPEECH 



OP 



HOK F. M:C0CKRELL, 

OF MISSOURI, 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



APRIL 19 AND 20, 1898. 



\ ■" 



WA.SHIN'GrTOISr. 
1898. 



E 1X1 



680 






The President's Message and the Recognition of the Inde- 
-Q pendcnce of the Republic of Cuba. 



*«♦ 



,^ SPEECH 

^ , OF 

T HON. F. M. COCKEELL, 

^ OF MISSOURI, 

,s' In the Senate of the United States, 

"^ April 19 and 20, ISDS. 

Tbe Senate liaviEg under consideration the bill (H. R. 842S) making appro- 
priations for sundry civil expense.? of the Government for the fiscal year end- 
ing June 30, 1899, and for other purposes- 
Mr. COCKRELL said: 

Mr. Pkesidext: I am delighted to see the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Maine [Mr. Hale] here. I hope he will iise his per- 
suasive and forceful power in bringing the Republicans into line 
with their President to-day. I should like to see the Republicans, 
instead of attempting to slap their President in the face, stand 
loyally hj him as they were appealed to do the other day. 

Mr. President, here is a deliberate, a premeditated 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pasco in the chair). Does 
the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Llaine? 

Mr. COCKRELL. With pleasure. 

Mr. SPOONER (to Mr. Hale). I Ihink the advice is not bad. 

Mr. HALE. No. I say to the Senator that I fully concur with 
him and hope that upon all important matters the Republicans 
will be found, as they were at the end of the great controversy 
over the Cuban resolution, in solid rank in favor of sustaining 
the President. I wish I could say I hoped that on matters of great 
import which involve patriotic considerations and not party con- 
siderations we could find the Democratic party also joined with 
the Republicans In sustaining the Administration in patriotic 
endeavors; and I appeal to the Senator from Missouri to aid me 
and others to that end, that upon all these matters party jarrings 
shall cease and we will rally in common forces to support the 
Administration without regard to party. I welcome the day 
when the Senator will join -vtith me in persuading both sides to 
stand by the President. * * ' 

Mr. COCKRELL. I will' Welcome the day, too, Mr. President, 
when I can honestly and conscientiously, as a legislator, a member 
of a coordinate and coequal branch of this Government, approve 
of the policies of the President. Then I will stand by him whether 
he be Republican or Democrat. But if the Senator expects me to 
be a tail to the kite of the President, to bow submissively to his 
will, to swing to his coat tail, and to indorse everything he says and 
everything he recommends, and surrender the power of the legis- 
lative branch of the Government, and meekly bow to him and make 
him more than an emperor, he is very much mistaken. 

Mr. HALE. I wish to say right there that we all know the Sen- 
ator from Missouri well and have the highest respect for his inten- 
tions, and I do not think the wildest flight of imagination here on 
the part of any Senator has been able to picture the Senator from 
Missouri swinging to the coat tails of anybody. 

3 3275 






/ 



Mr. COCKRELL. No: and they never will, either. 
Mr. HALE. No; I do not think so. 

Jkli-. COCKRELL. When we had a Democratic President, elected 
by Democratic votes, and he undertook to pursue a policy which -I 
believed was repugnant to the doctrines of the party, to the bes't 
prmciplesof our system of government, and to the interests of the 
people, I did not appeal to anybody to stand by the President and . 
follow his policy; that he was the leader of the partv and we must' 
sustain him. No, sir: I repudiated him on that question. 
Mr. WILSON. I rise to a parliamentary inquirv 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington 
will state his parliamentary inquiry. 
INIr. WILSON. I am afraid my amendment is going to be lost. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 
the floor. 

Mr. HALE. The Senator from Missouri did not; but if the Sen- 
ator had believed as we believed yesterday, that the President was 
right, he would have appealed to his associates to stand by him 
and they would have stood by him. The Senator did not believe' 
under the conditions he has described, that the President was 
right, although he had helped to elect him. We believed the 

President was right 

Mr.. COCKRELL. Oh, I have no doubt about that. 
Mr. HALE. And are very glad we came out of that triumph- 
ant, with the party arrayed in a solid line. 

Mr. COCKRELL. This is a very good opportunity. I was glad 
to see the Senator from Maine come in. I wanted a pathway to 
this discussion. 

Onr Government is a peculiar one. We have a President, not 
a ruler; a servant of the people, placed there to execute the will 
of the people as expressed in the laws of the land enacted by Con- 
gress and sanctioned by him. Not a dollar of the millions and 
hundreds of millions raised can the President expend without the 
sanction of Congress, coming from the people. He has his sepa- 
rate functions, and they are limited, exceedingly limited. He 
can recommend to Congress measures; he can, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, judges, 
and other officers, and he has the weak power of recognizing a 
consul, an ambassador from a foreign country, but he can not 
appoint an ambassador or consul to anv foreign country, 

Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me, can he not ap- 
point an envoy? 

Mr. COCKRELL. And not one single envoy can the President 
of the United States appoint in the sense of the word "ambassa- 
dor " or as provided in the Constitution without law authorizing it. 
No President has ever attempted to do it. They have exercised the 
general governmental power of appointing a representative of their 
own to visit foreign countries, but they can not appoint an ambas- 
sador or a minister or a consul until the Congress of the United 
States has authorized it. The only power on earth which the Pres- 
ident can exercise is to receive an ambassador, a minister, or a 
consul, and I challenge anyone to show anything to the contrary. 
We have heard a great deal about the President's prerogative 
of receiving and recognizing foreign governments. How can he 
recognize a foreign government? He can recognize it by recog- 
nizing the representative of that government, and that is the full 
extent of his power. That is the beginning and the end of it, the 
alpha and the omega of his power. 
Now, that binds the judicial branch of the Government. Cer- 

3375 



tainly it does. It does not necessarily bind the legislative branch 
of the Government, unless they assent to it, directly or indirectly. 
It remains that way until some action is taken. Senators talk 
about Congress ujidertaking to infringe upon the power of the 
Executive and take away from him his prerogatives of recogniz- 
ing the independence of a government. 

What did we do? What did we propose? We proposed to rec- 
ognize the independence of Cuba, subject to what? To the ap- 
proval of the President. Would it not have been his act as much 
as ours? How were we encroaching upon the prerogatives of the 
President? It is mere tweedledee and tweedledum to talk any 
such stufE. We were not going to recognize, independently of the 
approval of the President, the Republic of Cuba. We proposed it 
to the President, and had he sanctioned it, it would have become 
effective. There was no encroachment upon the prerogative of 
the President— not one particle. 

There was no taking away from him of his right. It was pro- 
posed to him from us to recognize the Cuban Government. If he 
assented to it, it was recognition; if he did not, it was not; 
and yet here we had discussions for a week nearly in defense of 
the President and appeals from the Senator from Maine and the 
Senator from Wisconsin. "Oh, we must not override the pre- 
rogative of the President," his prerogative of recognizing, when 
the only power he has is merely from that one little clause there, 
that he can receive ambassadors. That is the only right that is 
given. It is there. There is his power. 

The Senator from Maine the other day talked as if it were treason 
for the Senators of the United States to refuse to follow the policy 
of the President. The President's policy ! Does the Senator from 
Maine forget what occurred from 1865 to 1869, when the President 
did have a policy— a Republican President— and when a Repub ■ 
lican Congress trampled it under their feet and passed bill after 
bill over his veto, reversing his policy, and compelling him by law 
to execute the reverse of his policy? 
Mr. GRAY. And then finally impeached him. 
Mr. COCKRELL. And then undertook to impeach him. I re- 
member the appeal of the Senator from Maine, that we must fol- 
low the policy of the President, and how he came here, in the 
most solemn and dramatic manner, for the purpose of impressing 
the Senate in the hour of its last vote, and said there never had 
been such a spectacle presented in the history of the country as 
Congress undertaking to thwart the policy of the President. _ I 
was astounded to hear such expressions come from that distin- 
guished Senator, when he ought to have known the record and 
history of his country. 

I believe there was another Republican President v,-ho had a 
policv, and it was that great soldier, that distinguished President, 
General Grant. He had a policy. It was to purchase Santo Do- 
mingo, and a Republican Congress trampled that policy under 
their feet and rejected it. Yet the Senator from Maine tells us 
that it was an anomalous case for us to be opposing the policy of 
the President. I believe there was another President who had a 
■ pohcy, and that was President Cleveland. Did Congress in every 
instance bow to his policy? By no means, Mr. President. Some 
Senators and Members followed and some did not, and that policy 
was repudiated by his own party in the Chicago platform. 

Mr. President, let me sav, once for all, that so long as I honestly 
believe the President of the United States, whether he is a Repub- 
lican or a Democrat, is acting within the spirit of his constitu- 

3275 



tional power and recommending measures to Congress which are 
wise and politic and just, just that long will I sustain him 
whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. It would be a uia^ 
grace to our system of government if the Senate or Hou33 of Rep- 
resentatives or both should become subservient to the dictation of 
a President, I do not care who he is. We are coordinate and co- 
equal branches. He recommends; we act. As I once to'.d a Dem- 
ocratic President. "It is your prerogative to recommend legisla- 
tion to Congress, and it is our prerogative to do as we please." I 
said to him, "You recommend legislation against silver. We ao 
not intend to carry it out. We make recommendations to you for 
appointments. You have a perfect right to do as you please. 
Just as we will do with our prerogative you have a right to do 
with yours." 

The branches of Government must be kept separate and inde- 
pendent. Xo man of any party is under obligation to follow the 
President of his party or the opposite partv unless the President 
is right. The President has no right to declare a policy and then 
have Senators appealed to to stand by that policy because it is the 
President's policy. That is not the ground iipon which the Sena- 
tor from Maine ought to have placed it. That is not the ground 
upon which a Senator can justify his action. He should have 
undertaken to vindicate the policy and show that it was right, in- 
stead of appealing to Senators to sustain it because it was the 
President's policy. 

Mr. MANTLE. Will the Senator from Missouri permit me to 
ask him a question? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly. 

Mr. MANTLE. Since the Cuban question has been brought up 
again this morning, and the statement has been made, as I under- 
stand, by the Senator from Maine [Mr. HaleJ that the action 
taken by the united vote of the Republicans upon this side of the 
Chamber was a support of the President's policy, I should like to 
a.sk the Senator from Missouri if, in his judgment, the resolutions 
adopted were the resolutions asked for by the President of the 
United States; whether, as a matter of fact, they are not infinitely 
stronger; whether, as a fact, they do not go very much further 
than what was asked for by the President of the United States? 
If that IS true, as a matter of fact, I ask the Senator if it does not 
follow that the action here taken was not the action asked for by 
the President, and consequently was not a support of the policy 
advised by the President? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I thank the Senator from Montana for men- 
tioning that point. There are so many things coming up this 
morning that I was going to pass that point over, but let me say, 
and I say it without fear of successful contradiction, that the 
policy indicated in the resolution which was passed and voted for 
by the Senator from Maine was in direct conflict with the recom- 
mendation of the President of the United States. 

Mr. HALE. Why did not the Senator from Missouri vote forit? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Because I did not think it was right: be- 
cause I did not think it went far enough in the direction of the 
opposite policy. 

I wish to call attention to the very essential points in the Presi- 
dent's message which indicate what he believed and recom- 
mended. That is the question. All the other is mere surplusage, 
I read from page 4 of his message: 

In April, 1896, the evils from which our country suffered through the Cuban 
war became so onerous that my predecessor made an effort to bring about a 
3275 



6 

peace through the mediation of this Government in any way that might tend 
to an honorable adjustment of the contest between Spain and her revolted 
colony, on the basis of some effective scheme of self-government for Cuba 
nnder the flag and sovereignty of Spain. 

That is what President McKinley says was the proposal of Presi- 
dent Cleveland. Now, mark the language, Senators, if yoti please: 

On the basis of some effective scheme of self-government for Cuba under 
the flag and sovereignty of Spain. 

Mr. TELLER. From what page does the Senator read? 
Mr. COCKRELL. About the middle of the fourth page. 

It failed through the refusal of the Spanish Government then in power to 
consider any form of mediation, or, indeed, any plan of settlement which did 
not begin with the actual submission of the insurgents to the mother coun- 
try, and then only on such terms as Spain herself might see fit to grant. 

I read now from the bottom of page 4: 

By the time the present Administration took ofQce a year ago, reconcen- 
tration— so called — had been made effective over the better part of the four 
central and western provinces, Santa Clara, Matanzas, Havana, and Piuar 
del Rio. 

The agricultural population to the estimated number of 300,000 or more 
was herded within the towns and their immediate vicinage, deprived of the 
means of support, rendered destitute of shelter, left poorly clad, and ex- 
posed to the most unsanitary conditions. 

That was at the beginning of the present Administration, in the 
spring of 1897. Then, as he states in the next few lines: 

By March, 1897, according to conservative estimates from official Sp.inish 
sources, the mortality among the reconcentrados, from starvation and the 
diseases thereto incident, exceeded 50 per cent of their total number. 

Mr. President, I turn again to page 7: 

The war in Cuba is of such a nature that short of subjugation or extermi- 
nation- 
Mark the words — 
subjugation or extermination a final military victory for either side seems 
impracticable. The alternative lies in the physical exhaustion of the one or 
the other party, or perhaps of both. 

Spain can not conquer the Cubans; the Cubans, without access 
to seaports, can not drive the Spaniards from their fortifications 
in the cities. It is a death struggle. That is the condition. Now 
I read again from page 7: 

Realizing this, it appeared to be my duty, in a spirit of true friendliness, 
no less to Spain than to the Cubans who have so much to lose by the pro- 
longation of the struggle, to seek to bring about an immediate termination 
of the war. 

Mark you, " an immediate termination of the war." 

To this end I submitted, on the 27th ultimo, as a result of much represen- 
tation and correspondence, through the United States minister at Madrid, 
propositions to the Spanish Government looking to an aiinistice until October 
1 for the negotiation of peace with the good oflices of the President. 

In addition, I asked the Immediate revocation of the order of reconcentra- 
tion, so as to permit the people to return to their farms and the needy to be 
relieved with provisions and supplies from the United States, cooperating 
with the Spanish authorities, so as to afford full relief. 

The reply of the Spanish cabinet was received on the night of the 31st 
nltimo. It offered, as the means to bring about peace in Cuba, to confide the 
preparation thereof to the insular parliament, inasmuch as the concurrence 
of that body would be necessary to reach a final result, it being, however, 
understood that the powers reserved by the constitution to the central 
Government are not lessened or diminished. As the Cuban parliament does 
not meet until the 4th of May next, the Spanish Government would not ob- 
ject, for its part, to accept at once a suspension of hostilities if asked for by 
the insurgents from the general in chief, to whom it would pertain, in such 
case, to determine the duration and conditions of the armistice. 

The propositions submitted by General Woodford and the reply of the 
Spanish Government were both in the form of brief memoranda, the texts 
of which are before me, and are substantially in the language above given. 
* * iji * « « * 

With this last overture in the direction of immediate peace, and its disap- 
pointing reception by Spain, the Executive is brought to the end of his effort. 
3275 



He has thrown up the sponge; "is brought to the end of his 
effort." What plainer language was ever uttered? "What plainer 
proposition could there be than the statement of the President 
that he had been "brought to the end of his effort." He could do 
no more. He had asked certain things that had been refused. 
Among those things there is no intimation, direct or indirect, that 
the independence of the Republic of Cuba was essential or neces- 
sary or would be expected. It was that the war should be brought 
to an end. 

Now, what does he say? I come to the gist of the matter: 

In my annual message of December last I said : 

" Of the untried measures there remain only : Recognition of the insurgents 
as helhgerents ; recognition of the independence of Cuba; neutral interven- 
tion to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contest- 
ants, and intervention in favor of one or the other party. I speak not of 
forcible annexation, for that can not be thought of. That, by our code of 
morality, would be criminal aggression." 

Here are three propositions which he says he mentioned to Con- 
gress— " Recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recog- 
nition of the independence of Cuba; neutral intervention to end 
the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contest- 
ants," taking them both, each by the throat and collar, one in 
either hand, and bringing them to an adjustment and making 
them settle. Mark the language, the significant language, " neu- 
tral intervention." 

Thereupon I reviewed these alternatives in the light of President Granfs 
measured words. 

He did not think then, without quoting it all, that we ought to 
recognize their belligerent rights. 

Nothing has since occurred to change my view in this regard; and I rec- 
ognize as fully now as then that the issuance of a proclamation of neutrality, 
by which process the so-called recognition of belligerents is published, could, 
of itself and unattended by other action, accomplish nothing toward the one 
end for which we labor — 

"Toward the one end for which we labor." Mark it. 

What is that end? I ask the attention of Republican Senators. 
What is that end? 

Accomplish nothing toward the one end for which we labor— the instant 
pacification of Cuba and the cessation of the misery that afflicts the island. 

Independence of Cuba? No, sir; not a particle. There is no 
such pui*pose, no such end. 

Could, of itself and unattended by other action, accomplish nothing toward 
the one end for which we labor. 

We are laboring for an end. We are striving for an end. What 
is it? 

Pacification of Cuba and the cessation of the misery that afflicts the island. 

Not the independence of Cuba: not the freedom of Cuba from 
Spanish rule and dominion; not the taking away from Cuba the 
flag of Spain and her military power and her barbarous and 
cruel treatment. So much for that. 

Now, he takes up the question of recognition. Let us see what 
he says. On page 10, after arguing against recognition, he says: 

Nor from the standpoint of expediency do I think it would be wise or pru- 
dent for this Government to recognize at the present time the independence 
of the so-called Cuban Republic. Such recogmtiou is not necessary in order 
to enable the United States to intervene and— 

What? Intervene and what— 
and pacify the island. 

"To intervene and pacify the island! " Not intervene and se- 
cure to the Cubans a stable, free, and independent government. 
Oh, no; pacify them! Take each side by the throat, and bring 
them together and say. " You shall settle this and stop fighting." 

3275 



If the Spaniards quit and the Cubans do not, make the Cubans 
quit; pacify them; the end for which we are aiming is pacifica- 
tion. 

To commit this coiintry now to the recos^nition of any particular govern- 
ment in Cuba might sulgoct ns to embarrassing conditions of international 
obligation toward the organization so recognized. 

How? How? I ask. He saj's: 

In case of intervention our conduct would be subject to the approval or 
disapproval of such government. 

Now, in case of recognition, what would be the result? It is an 
independent government. There is no liability on the part of the 
United States for anything on the face of the earth, above it, or be- 
neath it, and no man can show it. There is no liability on tho 
part of the United States in recognizing the independence of the 
government in any shape, manner, or form. No writer can show 
one word, or one line, or one sentence in any authority on earth 
that would make the United States, directly or indirectly, liable 
for anything. 

Mr. ALLISON. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri 
yield to the Senator from Iowa? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly. 

Mr. ALLISON. The Senator has quoted from the President's 
message in which he speaks of pacifying the island. Let me call 
attention to the fourth clause of our resolution passed yesterday, 
which is as follows: 

That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to 
exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for th3 
pacification thereof. 

* * * « « « « 

Mr. COCKRELL. You mean the word " pacification? " 

Mr. ALLISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COCKRELL. That was inserted when in the first part of 
the resolution there was a distinct and unequivocal recognition 
of the independence of the Republic of Cuba, and as a matter of 
course it must be taken in connection with that, and then in con- 
nection with the language that is used. 

Now, Mr. President, let us go a little further. We have been 
told that we did not follow the President, that we did not carry 
out his policy. I think the President could well exclaim, "Savo 
me from my friends!" 

The President was once a member of a legislative branch of this 
Government, a member of the House of Representatives, a coor- 
dinate and coequal branch with the executive branch of the Govern- 
ment and possessing ten thousand more powers and different kinds 
of power than the executive possesses. When President McKinley 
was a member of the House, we had a Republican President, and 
that Republican President had a policy, and that policy was to pre- 
vent the coinage of the standard silver dollars. A bill was intro- 
duced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Bland declaring 
for the frea and tiulimited coinage of the old standard silver dol - 
lars at the ratio of 16 to 1, of 413 1 grains, 9 parts fine. 

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Missouri 
yield to the Senator from Kentucky? 

Mr. LINDSAY, Before the Senator from Missouri goes off on 
the silver question, if he will permit me I shovild like to ask him a 
question. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am not going into that question. 



9 

Mr. LINDSAY. If he is not going to discuss silver, I will wait. 
If he is going to discuss it, I can not wait. 

Mr. COCKRELL. The President's policy was known. It was 
rumored everywhere that the President would veto a free-coinage 
bill. That was noised all abroad here. The Republicans were 
appealed to, just as the distinguished Senator from Maine the 
other night appealed to Republicans, to stand by the President 
and support his policy. When that bill came to a vote in the 
House — I have it in my hand just as it passed the House of Rep- 
resentatives. It was a bill for the free and unlimited coinage of 
the old standard silver dollar, and making it a full legal tender. 
And who voted for it? The Hon. William McKinley, a Repre- 
sentative from the State of Ohio, in direct conflict with the views 
of the President. When that bill came to the Senate, it fell into 
the hands of my distinguished friend the senior Senator from 
Iowa, and it became known as the Bland-Allison law. 

Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a 
question? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly, as many as you please. 

Mr. SPOONER. I ask the Senator whether in the present exi- 
gency it ought not to be considered that for the lime being the 
statute of limitations has run on that? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Oh, no; never on principles. Principles are 
like the eternal mountains. They are the landmarks as long as 
the earth lasts. They are beacon lights. They are monuments 
that never fade and never perish. Principles never change. Poli- 
cies will change, but principles never. When that bill was re- 
modeled into the Bland-Allison law, which authorized the jjur- 
chase of, I believe, 4.000,000 ounces— or dollars was it? 

^Ir. ALLISON. Four million dollars was the maximum. 

Mr. GRAY. From two to four. 

Mr. COCKRELL. It authorized the purchase of from two to 
four million dollars' worth per month and its coinage in the dis- 
cretion of the President, but still left the silver dollar a full legal 
tender for the payment of all debts, public and private, imless 
otherwise expressly specified. That bill went back to the House, 
and there it passed the House with the vote of the distingtiished 
Representative from Ohio, William McKinley, for it. That bill 

Eassed and went to the President — a Republican P*resident, who 
ad a fixed policj'— and that Republican President vetoed that 
bill, gave all the power he could to sink it to death. When the 
question of passing the bill over the Presidents veto came before 
the House of Representatives the Hon. William McKinley was 
still a member of that body, and in defiance of a Republican Presi- 
dent's veto he voted to pass the bill over the President's veto, and 
it was passed and became a law. 

President McKinley may thank his friend from Maine for his 
intercession in his behalf when his own record stultifies all that 
the Senator from Maine attempts to bring up in his defense. 
When President McKinley was a member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives he felt that he was a member of a coordinate and 
coequal branch of this Government; that the President had a 
right to recommend; that that was the end of his power; and 
when he recommended, if the Representative from Ohio, as he 
was then, did not believe that it was right, and just, and proper, 
it was his duty, his bounden duty, to vote against it, and he did 
not hesitate to exercise that power. Were he in the Senate to-day, 
and if the Senator from Maine were in his place, and a measure 
was to come up he would doubtless exercise the same power. 
3275 



10 

Ho can not thank, it seems to me, any Senator or Representative 
coming in and making an appeal to follow a measure because tne 
President recommends it. He did not pursue that policy. ^ o. 
Mr. Lindsay rose. tt l ^ 

Mr COCKRELL. Now I will hear the Senator from Kentucky. 
Mr! LINDSAY. I ask the Senator if that was not about the 
time that the Stanley Matthews resolution was passed? 
Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly. ^ ^ ^, 

Mr. LINDSAY. And whether that resolution represented the 
will of the AdministrationV , ,, r, 

Mr. COCKRELL. And he voted for it. I thank the Senator 
for naming it. They were in direct conflict. Just before this bill 
was passed over the President's veto the celebrated Stanley 
Matthews resolution was passed, declaring all the obligations of 
this Government to be legally and honestly and justly payable in 
standard silver dollars of 4131 grains weight, nine parts fine. It 
went to the House, and there received the support of the then Rep- 
resentative McKinley, in direct conflict with the President's policy 
and as a declared expression of policy opposed to the President. 
That was its object. It was to let the President know that Con- 
gress did not stand by his policy. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I suggest to the Senator from Missouri that it 
was the difference between whose ox is gored. At that time he 
was a Representative and thought that Congress had some rights. 
Now he is President and thinks we ought to follow him. 

Mr. COCKRELL. No; I will not bring any charge of that kind, 
because he has not undertaken in his message, which we have 
before us. to dictate to Congress. . 

Mr TILLMAN. Then his friends claim it for him. 
Mr. COCKRELL. I know it is his unwise friends, if the Sena- 
tor from Maine will permit me to say so— his indiscreet friends, 
who bring a plea that he himself would not bring and that his 
whole record shows is not correct. If there is anything .m the 
record of Mr. McKinley as a Representative from Ohio it is that 
he had his own policies and followed them whether they were the 
policies of the President or not; that he recognized that the Con- 
gress of the United States was a coordinate, coequal branch ot 
this Government, and had the right to enact laws whether the 
President favored or opposed them; that the President had his 
constitutional right to veto them, and that was all he had. 

Nothing could become a law without his— the President s— ap- 
proval unless passed by two-thirds of both bodies— the Senate and 
House. That was enough power for him. He was content then, 
and he is doubtless content to-day. I have never believed a word 
of the rumors that were circulated all around here that if we 
passed the joint resolution with the clause in it recognizing the 
independence of the Republic of Cuba, President William McKin- 
ley would veto it. I think it was done by his indiscreet friends tor 
the purpose of whipping in those who were not disposed to follow 
their recommendations and their policies, not those of the President. 
But now let us come back to the policy of the President and see 
what it was, 
Mr. HALE. Will the Senator allow me? 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri 
yield? 
Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly; as a matter of course. 
Mr. HALE. I do not want to prolong the discussion, but be- 
fore the Senator sits down I should like to have him answer this 
♦iuestion: Why, on the proposition which passed the Senate, the 



11 

first of which resolved that the people of the Island of Cuba are 
and of right ought to be, free and independent; on the second 
which demands the withdrawal of the Spanish forces and the 
abandonment of Cuba; on the third, which authorizes the President 
to use the Army and Navy to that end, and on the fourth, wh^ch 
repudiates the theory of annexation— why was it that on the roll 
call on those resolutions, covering such broad grounds of imme- 
diate action toward the independence of Cuba, thirty-five Demo- 
crats were found almost in solid rank voting "nay? " I wish the 
Senator would explain that. I can understand that the Senator 
is sensitive and that his associates are sensitive overnight. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Not a bit of it. I never rejoiced more in 
my life over any vote I ever cast than the vote I cast last night. 
I am glad of it, and it will stand as a monument of my devotion 
to the interests of a struggling people for a fi-ee and independent 
government m answer to their appeals to the oldest Republic in 
the world, which appeal I am sorry has been unheeded. 

Mr. HALE. I want the Senator before he sits down to explain 
the reasons why, when it was apparent that that was all that 
could be done, and also in the view that afterwards his associates 
m another body took the ground of voting for these resolutions 

and did it 

Mr. COCKRELL. The questions were entirely different. 
Mr. HALE. Why did the thirty-live Democrats who voted 
against these resolutions and would not put themselves on record 
^ in favor of them take that attitude and seek to prevent anv action? 

r^, Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President 

J Mr. COCKRELL. Wait a minute. I will answer the Senator 
^ from Maine myself. 

Mr, HALE. I did, in a speech made on Saturday last, which 
has been alluded to and which has aroused some trouble, make a 
little forecast, and that was that I predicted that the Senators 
who had been clamoring for war, clamoring for action, who were 
denouncing the President, and in some cases— not the Senator 
from Missouri himself— abusing the President, ere long would be 
found voting " no" and obstructing the movement. I did not ex- 
pect a realization to come so soon as Monday night. I did not 
expect, when we had come to resolutions that covered every ground 
but one, that meant immediate intervention and freedom for Cuba 
and the interposition of the armies and navies of the United 
States— I did not quite think that so soon as Monday night we 
would find almost the solid Democratic party voting "no." It 
came sooner than I expected, and I was a better prophet than I 
supposed myself to be. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am glad to hear the Senator sounding his 
own praises. "A prophet is not mthout honor save in his own 
country." 

Mr. HALE, It is very moderate, indeed. I did not expect the 
realization of the prediction would come so soon. 
Mr. COCKRELL. Are you through? 

Mr. HALE. The Senator will oblige me very much if, before 
he sits down, he will give me an explanation of this matter. 

Mr. COCKRELL. If the Senator wants to make a speech, he 
can make it after I get through with mine and yield the floor. I 
am willing to answer any question. 
Mr. HALE. Very well. 

Mr. COCKRELL. In the language of the Senator from Georgia 
[Mr. Bacon] , uttered last night upon this floor when the question 
came as to whether the Senate of the United States would agree 
3375 



to the amendment of the House of Eepresentatives striking out 
the clause recognizing the independence of the Republic of Cuba, 
which was the only issue then before the Senate and everything 
else was settled, the Senator from Georgia said: 

Mr President, in order tbat the action of each Senator may be properly 
understood, I desire to state my understanding of the effect of the vote we 
are now about to take. It is simply to record the position of each feenator 
uoon the particular amendment which is affected by the conference report, 
to wit, the amendment known as the Turpie amendment. In other words, 
while all of the resolution was read to-night, the vote to be cast has no refer- 
ence whatever to any part of the resolution except such parts as are m issue 
between the two Houses. .„ ^, ... i. ,. 

Mr. FoRAKER. The vote, I suppose, will cover the proposition to restore 
the words "are, and." .,,,,,, , . ^ t •> • , 

Mr Bacon. Of course. I understand that; but the object I have in mak- 
ing the statement is that as the entire resolutions were read it might with- 
out suggestion appear that the vote which we cast is far-reaching enough to 
include the entire resolutions. I desired to make the suggestion in order 
that there might be no misunderstanding, that the vote sinvply relates to the 
particular amendments which are in issue, or rather m difference, between 
the two Houses. 

Then the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Joxes] said: 

The ioint resolution as passed by the Senate went from the Senate to the 
House It was passed by the House in exactly the same terms that it passed 
the Senate, except that the two words "are and" and the provision recog- 
nizing the independence of the Republic of Cuba were stricken out. By the 
agreement of the conferees the words "are and "are agreed to be left ex- 
actly as they were in the joint resolution when it went from the Senate to 

The joint resolution has, therefore, passed both the Senate and the House, 
and no part of it is in controversy on tlie conference report before us except 
the one item as to whether we shall recede from our declaration in favor of 
the independence of the Republic of Cuba. 

The sole question left is whether the Senate will agree to the conference 
agreement which proposes that the Senate shall agree to the action of the 
riouse in striking out the provision for the independence of the Republic of 
Cuba Those of us who believe that we ought not to recognize the Republic 
of Cuba and that the House was right in striking that out ought to vote for 
the report of the conference committee. 

And they did. 

Those of us who believe that the Senate was right in providing for the 
recognition of the independence of the Republic of Cuba, it seems to me, are 
compelled to vote " nay " on agreeing to the conference report. 

And we did; and we voted right; and I am proud of the vote. 

Mr. MANTLE. May I interrupt the Senator from Missouri for 
a moment? _,. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri 
yield to the Senator from Montana':* 

Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly. 

Mr. MANTLE. I merely wish to interject here the statement 
that while 35 of us voted last night, as was well said by the Sen- 
ator from Missouri [Mr. Cockrell] , against striking out from 
the resolutions the recognition of the Republic of Cuba, it is also 
a fact that all of us, with some 30 more, had previously voted for 
all that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Hale] voted for last night 
with the addition of the recognition of the Republic of Cuba. 

Mr. COCKRELL. That is very true, and I was just going to 

Mr. BACON. The Senator from Maine voted against the reso- 
lutions when they were before the Senate. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Yes; he voted against them because they 
had recognition in them, and we voted against the conference re- 
port because it did not contain the recognition of the Republic of 
Cuba, and our vote was perfectly consistent. All of us, with one 
or two exceptions, had voted for the passage of the resolutions. 



13 

They went to the House of Eepresentatives and the House voted 
for them and passed them. The question that was in the House 
was an entirely different question from the question presented 
here. That body had already agreed to the resolutions, and there- 
fore they were perfectly justified in voting as they did, and we 
would not have been justified in voting otherwise than we did 
because we would not have expressed the sentiments and views 
of individual Senators if we had not so voted, 

Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator aUow me? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I will yield to the Senator from South 
Carolina for just a minute. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I want to ask the Senator from Maine a ques- 
tion. Does he claim any part or parcel in the paternity of the 
resolutions Avhich were passed last night? 

Mr. HALE. I certainly helped to pass them. 

Mr. TILLMAN. After you had fought them for four days. 

Mr. HALE. After 1 had fought for the freedom of Cuba with- 
out the scheme of recognition being added to the resolutions. 

Mr. COUKRELL. If the Senator wants to ask me a question I 
will answer, but I am not going to have other Senators interiect 
their speeches into mine. There is plenty of time, and we have 
nothing else to do but to talk about this question. Remember 
I never occupied a minute of the time of the body on this question 
when it was important to have prompt action; but it has now 
passed, and we can talk as much and as long as we please. 

Mr. HALE. If the Senator does not yield, I will not insist on 
putting questions to him. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am always glad for a question, but not for 
a speech. 

Mr. SPOONEPw I want to appeal to my friend from Maine 
[Mr. Hale] that he should not interject any remarks of his into 
any political speech of the Senator from Missouri. It is not fair. 

Mr. HALE. I think there is something in that. I was going to 
answer the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Tillman] , but if 
the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Cockrell] desires to go on, as 
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Spooner] has suggested, and 
complete his exculpatoiy speech, his political speech, I shall not 
intervene. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I do not care a continental cent whether you 
call it a political speech or not. I am not hidebound. 

Mr. HALE. I think the Senator from Wisconsin is probably 
correct. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I want you to understand distinctly that I 
am a Democrat; that I believe in the cardinal, imperishable, and 
monumental principles of that oldest, grandest, and noblest of all 
political organizations that has ever existed on American soil— 
the Democratic party. 

]Mr. HALE. I thought so. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I want to say further that the Senator made 
some remarks when he lectured us the other night that we would 
be found opposing the President. If the Senator expects us to 
vote for every project brought in here that is to be covered by the 
honored name of the President, regardless of whether it be right 
or wrong, he will find that he is mistaken. Whenever the Presi- 
dent adopts a policy which we know is for the best interests of 
the country, and is honest, just, and wise, then we will support it 
jiist as heartily as if it were the policy of a Democratic President; 
but we will oppose measures which we regard otherwise, just as 
3275 



14 

we would oppose them if proposed by a Democratic President. 
We are no tail to anybody's kite. We are, so far as I am con- 
cerned, at least, not dragged around at the coat tail of any man. 

I regard the Presidential office as the highest in the world— the 
highest in the gift of the people of the world. I honor the Presi- 
dential position; but it is a constitutional position. The Presi- 
dent is not a czar; he is not an emperor; he is not a king; he is not 
a ruler, but he is the representative of the American people, 
placed in the position of President under a written Constitution, 
in which all his powers are defined, and side by side with him to 
administer this Government is the coordinate and coequal branch, 
the legislative branch, the Senate and House of Representatives 
and side by side with them, but created by them, is the judicial 
branch, the .judiciary to declare the intent and meaning of the 
laws enacted by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and 
the President. 

Now, Mr. President, we are not going to be driven to support 
any measure which may come in here and be labeled '■ The policy 
of the President." No,' no; I want that distinctly understood in 
the beginning. We will sustain the President in all proper move- 
ments to carry out the resolution which has been adopted. What 
is it? To drive every Spaniard from every foot of Cuban soil and 
establish there the Republic of Cuba— the independent, free Re- 
public of Cuba. 

Mr. BUTLER. Will the Senator allow mc? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Certainly. 

Mr. BUTLER. The indefinite and colorless resolutions of the 
House of Representatives were improved in a number of particu- 
lars by the Senate, and every improvement put upon the House 
resolutions was put there by the solid votes of those of us who 
voted last night and who have on every occasion voted for Cuban 
independence. Every single improvement was made by the solid 
Populist and Silver Republican vote and almost solid Democratic 
vote. There was another improvement that we wanted. It was 
important; it was vital. It was recognition of the independence 
of the Cuban Republic. This important improvement would have 
perfected the resolutions. We put this in once. The House 
struck it out. Last night 35 of us voted to put it back, and thus 
make the resolutions perfect and effectual; but we did not have 
enough votes to accomplish the object. That is the case in a nut- 
shell. 

Mr. COCKRELL. That is no doubt true. It is true that every 
improvement and addition which bettered the resolutions pro- 
posed by the Committee on Foreign Relations, as adopted by the 
Senate, was supported by those who voted against striking out 
the clause recognizing the independence of the Republic of Cuba; 
and nearly all of them were opposed by the distinguished Senator 
from Maine 

Mr. BUTLER. Every one of them. 

Mr. COCKRELL. And those who are lecturing us now in re- 
gard to our action. 

Mr. HALE. Then what the Senator means to say is that he 
and his associates were opposed to any action in the way of inter- 
vention, to any movement whatever in the direction of free Cuba, 
unless they could get absolute recognition of the Cuban insurgents 
as a governments I ask the Senator whether it does not amount 
to that? What the Senator from North Carolina said, that they 
voted to perfect the resolutions, and when they got them perfected, 

3275 



15 

because they could not get that one distinctive thing- the reco<'- 

nition of the Republic of Cuba ° 

Mr. COCKRELL. We did not vote against them. 
Mr. HALE. Then they voted against the resolutions. 
Mr. COCKRELL. We did not do any such thing. That has 
been explained. I have explained it in the language of the Sena- 
tor from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] ; I have explained it in the language 
of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Jones], and I have explained 
It m my own language. What we voted for was not to recede 
from our position recognizing the independence of the Republic 
of C'uba, We had voted for every other one of the propositions 
the Senator from Maine voted for last night. He is the only one 
who has been turning somersaults. 

_ Mr. HALE. Did not the Senator vote finally against the adop- 
tion of the conference report? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Not at all. We voted against the strikin'^ 
out of the recognition of the Cuban Republic. " 

Mr. HALE. The Record shows plainly. 
Mr. COCKRELL. The Record shows what it shows exactly 
Now, does the Senator undertake to quibble over such a littla 
thing as that? What was that conference report? It was that 
the Senate should recede from its disagreement. That was all 
there was of it. Every particle of the remainder of the resolutions 
Lad been agreed to, and that was all there was left of the ques- 
tion at that time, and it was so stated upon the floor of the Sen- 
ate. The Senator can not quibble upon that and undertake to 
say that 35 of us voted against the resolutions or against any kind 
of a measure at all. We had thrust upon you and upon others 
who were opposing us the resolutions \vhich you had to take in 
the end. 

Mr. HALE. Does the Senator deny that the resolutions I have 
read, which passed the Senate and passed the House of Represent- 
atives, will become the law of the land when the President si^-ns 
them? ° 

Mr. COCKRELL. As a matter of course; everybody knowa 
tney will. 

Mr. HALE. Did not the Senator vote against them? 

Mr. COCKRELL. No, sir; not in that sense of the word. 

Mr. HALE. The Record so shows. The Record shows 35 
votes against them. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I voted against striking out that one clause 
recognizing the Republic of Cuba. Suppose, however, our vote 
had prevailed, what would have been the result? We would have 
still insisted upon the adoption of the resolution as it had been 
passed by the Senate; and we would have got it in that form- that 
would have been the end of it, and that included the recognition 
of the Republic of Cuba, and then the Senator would have voted 
against it. 

Mr. HALE. Rather than have voted for that resolution. 

Mr. COCKRELL. We had already voted for the resolution and 
had acted upon it. I hope the Senator from Maine will not under- 
take such a pettifogging quibble here, which would not be worthy 
of an attorney m a justice's court. If we had succeeded in dis- 
agreeing to the conference report and had insisted upon our 
amendment and the House had yielded and it had come before us 
m that way, would the Senator then have voted for it? 

Mr. HALE. I voted against it whenever I had an opportunity. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Then you would have voted against anv- 
thing 

3275 



16 

Mr. HALE. No; I did not believe that it was necessary, in or- 
der to secure the freedom of Cuba, that we should insist upon a 
resolution recognizing the insurgent government, but the Senate 
took that ground. The Senator may undertake to try to get out 
of it as much as he pleases, but the country will come to realize 

Mr. COCKRELL. We are not afraid of the coimtry. 

Mr. HALE. That 35 Democrats were found solidly voting 
against that proposition. 

Mr. COCKRELL. We will appeal to the country. We are not 
afraid of the sovereign people of this country, not a bit of it. 

Mr. HALE. You ought to be. 

Mr. COCKRELL. We are willing to trust to the verdict of the 
people and to trust to their intelligence. They can not be hood- 
winked and deceived in any such way as the Senator supposes. 

•s ***** '^ 

It was distinctly stated by me that I would move to insist on the 
amendment of the Senate after the conference report had been 
rejected. That motion was to disagree; and we on this side voted 
against agreeing to the report. Had that vote carried, what would 
have been the result? There would have been a disagreement, and 
the resolution would have gone back to the House for its further 
consideration; and it would not have involved the defeat of the 
joint resolution. 

Mr. SPOONER. Had not the Senator voted against a motion 
to request a further conference? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I had ; but it was in order to secure a further 
chance of the House accepting the Senate resolution. 
Mr. TELLER. Thev had not asked for a conference. 
Mr. COCKRELL. They had not asked for it. I wanted the 
House to pass upon it again. W^e ought to have known better; 
but yet we thought there was probably something of the House 
of Representatives left. 

Mr. SPOONER. It was a party play, Mr. President, m the face 
of a great exigency; an attempt to put on one side of this Cham- 
ber the particiilar men who disagreed with the other side in a hole 
on the question of the freedom of Cuba. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Not at all. Not at all. It was not meant 
to put anybody in a hole. 
Mr. TELLER. I should like to say one word. 
Mr. COCKRELL. In a moment. The question upon which we 
voted was whether we would agree to the conference report. Had 
the " noes" prevailed there would have been a disagreement, and 
that would not have defeated the resolution, for the resolution 
would still have been in conference between the two Houses, and 
we would still have been contending over the clause recognizing 
the independence of the Republic of Cuba. That was all there 
was in it. 

*: * * * IP * » 

Mr. MONEY. Will the Senator from Missouri allow me? 

Mr. COCKRELL. The Senator from Georgia has asked me 
half a dozen times to yield. 

Mr. BACON. I simply desire to say one thing. The Senator 
from Maine [Mr. Hale] and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Spooner] are evidently pluming themselves upon the fact that 
they secured the passage of these resolutions. I want to call 
attention to the fact that neither the Senator from Maine nor the 
Senator from Wisconsin has ever voted for these resolutions, and 
the Record will not phow that they did. 
3275 



17 

Mr. TELLER. They voted against the resolutions, 

Mr, BACON. They voted against them every time, and thero 
is no place which either of the Senators can put his finger upon to 
show that he ever voted for the resolutions, and I will prove it 
right here, 

Mr', HOAR. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me? 

Mr, BACON, Pardon me for a moment. Permit me to com- 
plete my statement, and I will yield to the Senator with pleasure. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia de- 
clines to yield, 

Mr. BACON. There has been but one occasion upon which the 
Senate has voted on the resolutions which finally passed the Sen- 
ate, and that was on Saturday last, when the identical resolu- 
tions were passed by a vote of 07 yeas to 21 nays, the only differ- 
ence between the resolutions and those which came back from 
the House being the amendments to the first resolution. The 
first resolution related exclusively to the independence of Cuba, 
and of the Republic of Cuba, Now, the first resolution, which is 
the only one that ever came into dispute, had no reference what- 
ever to intervention or to any action on the part of this Govern- 
ment. It related exclusively to the simple question of the recog- 
nition of the independence of the people of Cuba and to the rec- 
ognition of the Republic of Cuba. The other resolutions are 
these, and I want to read them in order that the point may be 
made clear, I begin with the second resolution that passed the 
Senate on Saturday night last: 

Second. That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of 
Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba 
and withdraw its land and naval forces fi'om Cuba and Cuban waters. 

Thii'd. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is. di- 
rected and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United 
States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of 
the several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolu- 
tions into effect. 

Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or inten- 
tion to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except 
for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is ac- 
complished to leave the government and control of the island to its people. 

I assert as a fact, and as a parliamentary fact, that the Senate 
voted on those three resolutions which I have read but once, and 
that was last Saturday night, and that upon that occasion there 
were 67 yeas and 21 nays, and the Senators who then voted in tho 
negative have never had an opportunity since to vote in the 
affirmative on it, and have never voted in the affirmative since. 

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President 

Mr. BACON. Will the Senator from Wisconsin pardon me for 
a moment? Among those 21 nays are the names of the Senator 
from Maine [Mr. Hale] and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Spooner]. 

Mr. SPOONER. That is right. 

Mr. BACON. The nays are as follows 

Mr. SPOONER. That is right 

Mr. BACON. Pardon me. The 21 nays who voted against 
those three resolutions, and who have never since voted for them, 
and who will never again have an opportunity to vote for them, 
are as follows: 

Aldrich, Hale, Morrill, Wellington, 

Allison, Hanna, Piatt, Conn. Wetmore, 

Burrows, Hawley, Piatt, N. Y. White. 

Cafferv, Hoar, Pritchard, 

Elkins', McBride, Sewell, 

Fairbanks, McMillan, Spooner, 



18 

That is tlie only record that can be fotind np to the present date 
where the qtiestion whether the Senate should or should not pass 
those three resolutions was ever acted upon by the Senate, and 
upon that occasion the twenty-one names which I have mentioned 
were recorded in the negative. 

W w VP w "Sp ^ ^ 

The conference report had no relation whatever to either of the 
three resolutions which I have read — none whatever. The con- 
ference committee had no relation to that, and no vote upon the 
conference report could have any relation or any reference to the 
three resolutions which I have read. I repeat, that the Record — 
and everything that was done is in print — can not show the i^lace 
where either of the 21 Senators whose names I have read ever 
voted for either of these three resolutions. 

It is a matter of elementary knowledge known to every Senator 
here and to every tyro elsewhere that matters of difference between 
the two Hoiises are the only things which go into conference. No- 
body can dispute that fact. 

What was the difference between the two Houses? Was thei-e 
any difference between the two Houses as to the three resolutions 
I have read? Not a particle. We passed a joint resolution here 
containing those three resolutions, and our action so far as those 
three resolutions were concerned was final. The joint resolution 
went to the'House, and the House passed the same three resolu- 
tions v/ithout amendment, and their action as to those three reso- 
lutions was final, and they had no further opportunity to act upon 
them. 

As to the first resolution, there were two differences. We had 
passed the first resolution on Saturday last in these words: 

Tlmt the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right onght to be, free 
and independent, and that the Government of the United States hereby 
recognizes tlie Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful goyernmeut of that 
island. 

That is what we passed. When it went to the House, as to that 
resolution, and that alone, the House made a disagreement. It 
made no disagreement as to either of the other thi'ee resolutions 
or any part of them, any line or letter of them, but they did make 
a disagreement as to the first resolution. They made two dis- 
agreements. They said, in the first place, that the words " are, 
and " ought to come out, so that it woiild simply read " That the 
people of the Island of Cuba of right ought to be free." That 
was one difference. We said the words ' ' are, and " ought to be in. 
They said they ought to be out. 

Another difference was that thej' said that part of it which rec- 
ognized the Republic of Cuba ought to come out. We said it 
ought to be in. There were two differences, and a conference com- 
mittee was asked of the two Houses. For what? To pass on the 
three resolutions I have read? Certainly not. Each House had 
agreed to them. The Senate had agreed to them, although the 
21 gentlemen whose names I have mentioned voted against them, 
and the House had agreed to those three resolutions; but as 
to the first resolution there were two differences, and we had a 
conference for the purpose of settling the differences on the first 
resolution, and that alone. 

Now I repeat, that it is a principle which no man can dispute 
that a conference committee has no jurisdiction over anything ex- 
cept as to the differences between the two Houses, and that tliose 



19 

differences were siicli as I have here stated and related in no man- 
ner to anything else. Therefore when the conference committee 
reported they could report nothing bej'ond their jurisdiction. 

Mr. SPOONER. Of course not. 

Mr. BACON. They attempted nothing beyond their jurisdic- 
tion. They simply attempted to comiiose the differences betAvee"5. 
the two Houses, to compose the differences as to those two amend- 
ments to the first resolution, and when they came in and when 
we refused to agree to the recommendation of the conference com- 
mittee, we made no refusal as to the three resolutions with which 
they had nothing to do, and when we agreed to their recommen- 
dation we did not agree to anything which related to the three 
resolutions with which they had nothing to do. ' 

******* 

The differences between the two Houses related exclusively to 
the first resolution. If we had prevailed, the matters to which 
the House objected would have remained in the joint resolution 
and it would have become law witii that matter in it. So the 
joint resolution would not have been defeated if we had prevailed. 
I am speaking about the Turpie amendment. On the other hand, 
when the Turpie amendment was not permitted to prevail, as under 
the conference report it was excluded, the resolutions have become 
a law without the Turpie amendment. But under our action, 
whichever side prevailed, the three resolutions would have become 
law, just as they have become law, without alteration. But in the 
one case they would have become law with the recognition of the 
Cuban Republic. In the other case they would have become law, 
as they probably already have done, without the recognition of 
the Cuban Republic. 

Now, Mr. President, one other word and I will stop. The Sen- 
ator from Maine in the course of his remarks twitted the Senator 
from Missouri with the fact that the Democrats in the House had 
voted in the affirmative on the conference report and the Demo- 
crats in the Senate had voted in the negative on the conference 
report. I desire to point, I think with perfect ease, to the fact 
that in each case the Democrats, both in the Senate and the House, 
voted for the accomplishment of i^ractically the same purpose. 
When the House agreed to the conference report, they had no vote 
to make on the Txirpie amendment, because they had never agreed 
to the Turi^ie amendment. Consequently, it not having been 
recommended that they should agree to that amendment, it was 
not before them in any way. The House had stricken out the 
words "are and," and they were called upon by the conference 
report to restore those words. Now, when they voted to restore 
those words, they voted that the resolutions should declare that 
"the people of Cuba are and of right ought to be free." Conse- 
quently their vote in that instance was in the interest of the inde- 
pendence of Cuba. 

On the other hand, when the report came to the Senate for our 
action, we had nothing to do with the voting on the question as to 
restoration of those words, because we had already put them in 
and we were not called upon to restore them. What we were 
called upon to do was to recede from the proposition that the Re- 
public of Cuba should be recognized as free and independent; 
and when we voted "nay,"' we voted in the interest of the inde- 
pendence also of the Cuban Republic. 

So, while the House voted in the affirmative on the conference 
report, they voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba; and 
3375 



20 

in the Senate, while we voted in the negative on the conference re- 
port, we equally voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba. 
They voted on one proposition and we voted on another, and both 
proijositions were included in the conference report. 

****** ^ 

Mr. SPOONER, I wish the Senator from Missouri would yield 
to me for a moment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri 
yield? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am perfectly willing to yield for a ques- 
tion. I will answer any question, but I have started here and 
gotten to a certain point. I have Ijeen reading from the Presi- 
dent's message, and I want to get through with it. I do not know 
how many hornets' nests I shall stir up as I go along, but still I 
should like to proceed with the President's message. 

Mr. President, I was discussing armed or neutrality interven- 
tion. I was quoting from the President's message on i)age 10, 
where he said: 

There remain the alternative forms of intervention to end the war, either 
as an impartial neutral by imposing a rational compromise between the con- 
testants or as the active ally of the one party or the other. 

We have heard a great deal about the President's policy and 
that we must follow the President's policy, and we have been lec- 
tured because we were opposing the President's policy. I am try- 
ing to find out now exactly what was the President's policy and 
recommendation. I want Senators to note these words: 

There remain the alternative forms of intervention to end tlie war, either 
as an impartial neutral by imposing a rational compromise between the con- 
testants^ 

"Rational compromise between the contestants" — 

or as the active ally of the one party or the other. 

Which one of these horns of the dilemma does the President 
take? He says: 

There remain the alternative forms of intervention to end the war. either 
as an impartial neutral by imposing a rational compromise between the con- 
testants — 

Making them both submit; making them both equally submit, 
neither in favor of one nor the other. Now, what does he say? 

As to the first, it is— 

What is that? "An impartial neutial by imposing a rational 
compromise between the contestants." 

As to the first, it is not to be forgotten that during the last few months the 
relation of the United States has virtually been one of friendly iuterven 
tion— 

"Friendly intervention!" — 

in many ways, each not of itself conclusive, but all tending— 

Where tending? — 

tending to the exertion of a potential influence toward an ultimate pacific 
result— 

"An ultimate pacific result!" — 

just and honorable to all interests concerned. The spirit of all our acts 
hitherto has been an earnest, unselfish desire for peace and prosperity in 
Cuba, untarnished by differences between us and Spam, and unstained by 
the blood of American citizens. 

Now listen: 

The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral- 
Mark the language — 

The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war— 
3275 



21 

The phrase "to stop the war" is repeated hereafter— 
The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, 
according to the large dictates of humanity and following many historical 
precedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless 
sacrifices of life by internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable 
on rational grounds. It involves, however — 

What? I ask Senators to listen. It involves what — 

It involves, however, hostile constraint— 

"Hostile constraint" — 

upon both the parties to the contest as well to enforce a truce as to guide the 
eventual settlement. 

■ There is the recommendation of the President of the United 
States. Nothing less and nothing more and nothing else. There 
it is: 

The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, 
according to the large dictates of humanity and following many historical 
precfedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless 
sacrifices of life by internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable 
on rational grounds. It involves, however, hostile constraint upon both the 
parties to the contest as well to enforce a truco as to guide the eventual set- 
tlement. 

Now he gives the ground for it. He goes on and discusses all 
about it. Then ho tells about the naval court of inquiry. What 
does he say in the end? I read from page 13: 

The long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the 
war can not be attained. The fire of insurrection may flame or may smolder 
with varying seasons, but it has not been and it is plain that it can not be 
extinguished by present methods. The only hope of relief and repose from 
a condition which can no longer be endured — 

Is what? What is the only hope? I appeal to Senators. What 
is the only hope of the President? He says this is unendurable. 
Now, what is the only hope? — 

The only hope of relief and repose from a condition which can no longer 
be endured is the enforced* pacification of Cuba. 

The enforced pacification of Cuba. Not the independence of 
Cuba. Not the recognition of the independence of Cuba. Not 
the expulsion of Spain from Cuba, but the enforced pacification 
of Cuba by the United States, taking Spain and Cuba, respec- 
tively, each by the throat, and forcing them to terms. As I said 
before, as I quoted: 

It involves, however, hostile constraint upon both the parties to the con- 
test as well to enforce a truce as to guide the eventual settlement. 

That was the way of it. Enforce the truce and then guide the 
settlement and constrain both parties. Tliat was the recommen- 
dation, pure and simple, and no living man can take the message 
and make anything else of it. 

In the name of humanity, in the name of civilization, in behalf of endan- 
gered American interests — 

Says the President — 

which give us the right and the duty to speak and to act, the war in Cuba 
must stop. 

Must stop how? By the constrained intervention "upon both 
the parties to the contest." There it is. Yet the Senator from 
Maine [Mr. Hale] asked us to follow the President's policy; he 
said that that is the policy to follow. Did he follow it? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri 
yield to the Senator from New Hampshire? 

3'r 



22 

Mr. COCKRELL. In one moment. Now, I want to do justice 
to the President. I want to show that what his policy was is not 
the policy that was carried out, and is not the policy that was rec- 
ommended by any committee of the Senate or of the House. 
Neither the resolution passed by the House nor that passed by the 
Senate is a fair interpretation of that policy. Now, what does he 
say? 

The issue is now with the Co7ig:ress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have 
exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable condition of affairs which is 
at our doors. 

"I have done all I can as the President of the United States in 
the exercise of my Executive functions. The matter now rests 
with the Congress." He has given his views. He has made his 
recommendations. He is powerless to do more, and he leaves the 
matter entirely to Congress. 

Mr, GRAY. Will not the Senator from Missouri in fai.rnes3 
read the next paragraph where he stopped? 

Mr. COCKRELL. I am going to read it all. 

Mr. GR A y. Read the paragraph beginning, ' ' In view of these 
facts." 

Mr. COCKRELL. I intended to read that before. I will read 
it. Now, what is his further recommendation? 

In view of these facts and of these considerations, I ask the Congress to 
authorize and empower the President to take measures to secure a full and 
final termination of hostilities between the Government of Spain and the 
people of Cuba, and to secure in the island the establishment of a stable gov- 
ernment, capable of maintaining order and observing its international obli- 
gations, insuring peace and tranquillity and the security of its citizens as well 
as our own, and to use the military and naval forces of the United States as 
may be necessary for these purposes. 

How? By the armed intervention, as he has recommended, as 
he has stated could be done by compelling the forces to come to- 
gether and agree to a pacification. That Vould give a stable gov- 
ernment and protect the rights of the people. It would not be an 
Independent republic and it would not be the expulsion of Spain. 
Then he says: 

In the interest of humanity and to aid in preserving the lives of the starv- 
ing people of the island I recommend that the distribiition of food and sup- 
plies be continued. 

Did the President recommend that the distribution of food sup- 
plies should be continued when he undertook to expel Spain from 
Cuba? Why, no; it was upon the theory that he was going to put 
the strong arm of the United States upon the Spanish Government 
with one hand and upon the Cuban government with the other 
and constrain them to terms, and while doing that he would issue 
rations to the people to prevent starvation. That is the only in- 
terpretation you can make of it; there is no other on earth that 
you can give to it. Then he says: 

The issue is now with the Congress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have 
exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable condition of affairs which is 
at our doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the 
Constitution and the law, I await your action. 

"I await your action." This was as every President ought to 
have done. He awaits the action of Congress. Now, Mr. Presi- 
dent, what was the action of Congress? Did we authorize him to 
place his mailed hand upon the Spanish and the Cuban govern- 
ments and bring them together and constrain them to a peace and 
then mabs a settlement? Not a bit of it. Did we authorize and 
3;275 



23 

empower him to do anytliing? Not a bit of it. There is no au- 
thority and power here. It is a direct command. There is a great 
deal of difference between the two. 

Mr. MONEY. The language is " directed and empowered." 

Mr. COCKRELL. "Directed and empowered." The language 
of the resolution is perfectly explicit: 

That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government 
of the United States docs hereby demand — 

What? Demand that pacification shall occur in Cuba? De- 
mand that constraint shall be put upon the Cuban and Spanish 
governments and bring them to a truce and a final settlement? 
No, no; it is that the Government demands — 

that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and govern- 
ment in the Island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba 
and Cuban waters. 

There it is. There is no equivocation about it. It is not au- 
thorizing and empowering, but it is directing and authorizing the 
President to do a specific act and giving him the power to do it. 
That was not in the Presidents recommendation; not a bit of it. 
And yet the Senator from Maine undertakes to say that these 
resolutions are in accordance with the policy of the President. 
They are dii-ectly the reverse of the policy of the President. What 
is the next clause? It reads: 

That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and 
empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and 
to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several 
States to such extent as may be necessary to carry— 

To carry what? To carry the demand for Spain to withdraw 
from Cuba and from Cuban waters; to withdraw its authority as a 
government and its forces; to give up the Island of Cuba. What 
does the first sentence mean? 

That the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free 
and independent. 

That is the recognition of the Republic of Cuba by innuendo, by 
indirection; it is not a specific recognition. 

Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator from Missouri allow me to 
interrupt him? 

Mr. COCKRELL, Certainly. 

Mr. SPOONER. The Senator is in favor of the declaration 
"That the people of the Island of Caba are and of right ought to 
be, free and independent? " 

Mr. COCKRELL. I voted for it and the Senator voted against it. 

Mr. SPOONER. But he did not believe it. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I did believe it was true. 

Mr. SPOONER. Never mind; the Senator was in favor of a 
demand upon the part of the United States that the Government 
of Spain should withdraw from Cuba 

Mr. COCKRELL. Yes. 

Mr. SPOONER. All her land and naval forces, was he not? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Yes, and I voted for it. 

Mr. SPOONER. The Senator voted against it. 

Mr. COCKRELL. I voted for it and you against it. I voted 
for it and the Record shows you voted against it. I am aston- 
ished that the Senator from Wisconsin should resort to such a 
subterfuge. It is the weakest bosh I ever heard of. It is not 
swill, much les?! soiip. There is no strength about it. There is 
nothing in it. He voted against it and I voted for it. and when 
it came to the pinch I voted against receding from it with the 
3275 



24 

view of getting another vote in the House, or another conference 
until the House would yield, as it ought to have done. 

Mr. Chandler rose. 

Mr. COCKRELiL. I see the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Chandler] is very anxious to do something or to ask me some- 
thing. I do not know for what purpose he has risen. 

Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Missouri does not care to 
finish his speech to-day? 

Mr. COCKRELL. Oh, no. 

Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator to yield for a motion to 
proceed to the consideration of executive biisiness. 

Mr. COCKRELL. All right. 



Ajiril 20, 1S9S. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Mr. President, I have only a word or two to 
add on the particular question we were discussing yesterday, and 
that is about Cuba. 

Prior to the receipt of the President's message I thought there 
was no question but that the President had notified Spain that the 
independence of Cuba was absolutely required. It was so stated 
in the press as coming authoritatively; it was so stated by others 
who had opportunities to know what had been done. When the 
message disclosed the fact that the President had never said to 
Spain that Cuba must be free, I felt that it was our duty then to 
take the initiative in recognizing the independence of Cuba. The 
President had the right to recognize the independence of Cuba, 
We supposed that he had told the Spaniards that Cuba must be an 
independent government. That is the reason why I for one in- 
sisted all the time that we should have in the resolution a distinct 
and unequivocal recognition of the Republic of Cuba, and that is 
the reason why I voted for every provision in the line of a decla- 
ration that the i^eople of Cuba are and of right otight to be a free 
and independent nation. 

We secured that, but we failed to secure the other provision 
which we thought was essential. 

I hope the President will construe the resolutions which have 
been adopted as an unequivocal declaration on the part of Con- 
gress that the Cuban people must bo free, and that not one par- 
ticle of restraint or constraint shall be imposed upon them by the 
power of the United States, either directly or indirectly. Aid, 
comfort, strength, and force must be given to them, instead of re- 
straint, and they will at no distant day achieve that freedom for 
which they have fought so long and endured so much. That is 
all I desire to say on this particular branch of-the question. 

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teller] asked me to yield to 
him yesterday, and while I was yielding to almost everybody, I 
find that I did not finally yield to him. I yield now, and trust ho 
will make his remarks in "his own time. 
3:375 



'i 



•rP. 



tSSBH**** 



:^b7bvo.coh3b.ss I 




